I'm an Anarcho-Rapist, guys

[ProjectRedfoot]

like.

very much like.

you might enjoy my freedom of choice video.

[AnarchoSyndicalistt]

great points

[eskimoplanecrash]

ugh... once i came across this porn where a few guys were stuffing strawberries up a girl's ass and then i thought yeah, porn is rape!

[shameoncanada]

"The rest just want race land, and don't really care how."

And therein lies the rub.

[brainpolice2]

That blatantly violates the non-aggression principle. You're justifying shooting people for having a statist ideology. That's insane. But thankyou for openly proving me correct, that you quite blatantly are advocating things that violate libertarian anarchism. You're advocating the initiation of force on the grounds that someone is a member of a particular group.

[NoCryingNowYes]

"That blatantly violates the non-aggression principle. You're justifying shooting people for having a statist ideology. That's insane."

It is insane in today's society, because everyone is a statist. But remember, statists are already violating the NAP by voluntarily paying for the government to steal, imprison and kill people who have not violated the NAP.

If only 1% of people in an area were statists trying to impose a state, they should be treated as a mafia group.

[brainpolice2]

More murderous in what way?

"Dealt with" means what? Are you advocating violence against the antifa people? Because that's a double standard.

[seigneurvoland666]

antifa are a reactionary and defense group that work on the grounds of solidarity. I don't consider them "aggressors"

[brainpolice2]

A claim you want to perpetuate, yet cannot prove and of which there is endless evidence to counter.

They define themselves well enough - and how they define themselves is not compatible with anarchism, or is at least often deceptive. Of course a group is going to define itself in the most positive light possible. That's to be expected.

I misrepresent Objectivists and Syndies? Give me a break!

[brainpolice2]

I'm not fabricating anything. You persist in defending an ambiguous position that floats somewhere inbetween the idea of WN as it is to begin with and an innocent-sounding anarchist notion of voluntary disassociation.

[brainpolice2]

You blatantly are painting a rosy picture in the attempt to vindicate these groups.

Yea, and you what you seem to be doing is encouraging the same thing as a reactionary measure against the antifas - forming white nationalist groups who call themselves anarchists and serve a similar role as the antifa groups.

[overmind25]

We just need to have an orgy to work all of this out.

[Darganot]

Exactly! Best idea I've heard all night.

[ewops]

I'll bring the itches and man hos

[overmind25]

Alright. lol

[brainpolice2]

I'm not encouraging statist Nazis. This only reinforces my point about you: you knee-jerkedly assume that anti-racism = political correctness or anti-racism = state-forced-integration. That's a conflation.

That you are accusing ME of encouraging "nazis" is laughable, given that YOU are the one pandering to the actual neo-nazis and white nationalists here. You are the one encouraging authoritarian groups by giving them an anarchist sugar-coating.

[brainpolice2]

You are engaging in a naturalistic fallacy that justifies heirarchy in terms of the relation between different races, or the relative merits of different races, which is greatly exaggerated.

You don't even sensibly define yourself, you're ambiguous between two different positions.

[MORECOWB3LL]

Yup.

[Darganot]

You don't say much do you?

[MORECOWB3LL]

Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't.

[brainpolice2]

You make naturalistic fallacy arguments for heirarchical tendencies.

[brainpolice2]

BTW, my vid wasn't directed specifically at you. It was more directed at the sentiments I see coming from Stodles and D4Shawn, and to make a general point.

[brainpolice2]

Also, I never meant to imply that you or D4Shawn aren't really anarchists. What I do argue, however, is that you may be acting unecessarily indifferent to things that may threaten to undermine the common goal of anarchism.

[brainpolice2]

I'm not fond of "human nature" arguements for heirarchical tendencies.

[Darganot]

either am I, I get them all the time.

[brainpolice2]

And yet, I interpret your apparent "realist" statements about race to be similar in kind to that.

[Darganot]

my arguments about race have nothing to do with heirarchical tendencies, they have to do with viewing the reality of race relations as they stand in modern society. If the state suddenly disappeared, does that mean racism would as well? I doubt it.

[brainpolice2]

No, it wouldn't dissapear. I never claimed that. However, if the state suddenly dissapeared, does that mean that I should become 100% indifferent to racism? This is where we start to disagree.

[brainpolice2]

I don't buy your assumption about people sticking to their own kind. Why would this have to be based primarily on race, and why isn't it in my rational self-interest to associate with others for more economic reasons? My contention is that the pursuit economic incentives makes things like race irrelevant. If people pursue economic benefit, it's not based on associating by race or nation, that becomes irrelevant.

[Darganot]

You likewise assume that there is an economic benefit to be had. What if there is no economy? My contention is that people will put survival above economic incentives.

[brainpolice2]

My "assumption" is a widely aknowledged fact by free market economics. Cooperation is more productive than isolation and the benefits of exchange have nothing to do with group-identity. And economic incentives is not divorced from survival. People pursue economic incentives in the name of survival.

[Austrolibertarian]

Just browsing the comments, but how can there be no economy? If more than one person exists in society and those people interact by exchanging any type of goods or services, there will be an economy (barter), just not a very vibrant one. Even in isolation people make economic value judgments to pursue their self-interests.

[brainpolice2]

I question that if I did the same thing you guys are doing with a more "leftish" cliche (like worker's ownership of the means of production or anti-racism), you too would be like "OMG GA GAZ!". In fact, I kind of see double standard. If I criticize racism on anti-authoritarian grounds, all of a sudden I'm bitterly resisted. And yet if I did the inverse and critisized multiculturalism on anti-authoritarian grounds, it'd be either endorsed or passively accepted.

[shameoncanada]

Exactly

[brainpolice2]

It's always race because it is stodles who brings up race, not me. Whenever I do talk about race this way, it is always in response to him being the one to initially bring racial and national issues up.

[brainpolice2]

I think you are horribly misunderstanding me by implying that I'm trying to control people's preferances or personal lifestyle choices. My point is that certain preferances are not mere personal and they actually infringe on other people's liberty by definition. Something like monarchy is a blatant example. My entire point is that the only way some of these preferances can be institutionalized is through coercion, or that the preferances themselves are coercive to begin with.

[brainpolice2]

The things I think are incompatible are not mere voluntary life-style choices, they are things that are authoritarian in their nature. My other point doesn't have to do with incompatability but cognitive dissonance - certain values are bad cultural preconditions for a free society. I don't see how one can treat the question of preconditions for a free society as irrelevant.

[brainpolice2]

It seems like you're simply trolling now, especially by the image which seems to imply that my position has something to do with radical gender feminism (which it doesn't).

[Darganot]

The image was just for laughs, honestly.

I have a room on stickam open if you want to hash this out.